Should be private organizations be allowed to discriminate?

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2003-11-04 08:37pm

So a friend and myself were discussing this last night online, regarding private organizations who do not receive funding for the government. Mainly, he brought up the case of Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale. If some of you non-Americans aren't familiar with this case, a brief synopsis would be that the Boy Scouts found out one of its scoutmasters, James Dale, was gay. His membership was then revoked. Dale filed suit alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people. The lower courts as well as the NJ Supreme Court held that the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law did not violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association because Dale's inclusion would not significantly affect members' abilities to carry out their purpose. Furthermore, the court concluded that reinstating Dale did not compel the Boy Scouts to express any message.

The SCOTUS, however, disagreed. William Rehnquist held that "applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association." In effect, the Boy Scouts now have a Constitutional right to exclude homosexuals from being troop leaders.

What does everyone think of this case, and generally? At first glance, I am inclined to agree with the SCOTUS because the Boy Scouts are a private organization and IIRC they can do whatever the fuck they want. This also includes the golfing club in Augusta Georgia who does not accept women as members (Martha Burke tried to raise a big stink about it about a year ago, but I haven't heard anything for a long time about it.)

On the other hand, the government has forbidden discrimination of private organizations in the past, when it required the Jaycees to open their membership to women because of the Minnesota Human Rights Act of 1984. Also, it required the Rotary Clubs to do likewise because of a California law forbidding businesses from gender discrimination.

What does everyone think?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-11-04 08:40pm

Freedom of Association tends to be an excuse for bigotry. The BSA isn't as clear cut a case as, let's say, an office job IMO.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-11-04 08:41pm

I agree with the Supreme Court. Nobody is forced to join the Boy Scouts, and no tax dollars fund it, so nobody is forced to pay for their existence either.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2003-11-04 08:48pm

I can see not letting same-sex orientaion leaders into cub scout and girl guide age and younger groups. If only to keep parents shut up, and to keep kids from worrying about there leader wanting to do things with them.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. I can just understand it.

However, full age Scouts and Pathfinders, no reason not to. By that age, they know enough go go 'hey, fuck OFF' and tell there parents

StimNeuro · Post by **StimNeuro** » 2003-11-04 08:48pm

As long as government money is not going to an organization, I have no problem with them discriminating based on any measure they see fit.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-04 08:49pm

As long as it is a volunteer or recreational organization that does not recieve public money they should be allowed to discriminate. However, businesses and publicly funded organizations should not be allowed to do so.

z020898 · Post by **z020898** » 2003-11-04 08:54pm

On the subject of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale I agree with the Supreme Court. My main reason for this is that all private organizations have the right to limit there membership to people who share there values. If they can't do so their ability to convey their message is impaired by having people argue with the message. When the message includes the statement that practicing homosexuality is wrong then a man who practices homosexuality can be excluded from the group. This applies to all groups, political parties, churches, private organizations, charitable organizations, and others. I am inclined to include companies on this list but that is a far more controversial subject with legitimate arguments that denying employment based on ideology is unjustified.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-04 08:56pm

I don't think businesses should be allowed to discriminate in hiring practices. Private organizations SHOULDN'T discriminate either, but I don't believe they should be disallowed to do so.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-04 09:59pm

I think they should be allowed to discriminate so long as they are truely private. Freedom of association is an important right and out to be maintained.

However, public or semi-private organizations should not be allowed to. And business damn well shouldn't be allowed.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-11-04 11:09pm

A private organization should be able to allow or not allow whoever they chose to join as long as they dont use public money to do so. I dont include business in this group however.

Holtzman · Post by **Holtzman** » 2003-11-04 11:12pm

They are in their legal boundries to do so. Does it make it right? Probably not. But I don't think that it really hurts anyone who was or wasn't going to join in the first place. I think there are always other opportunities.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-11-04 11:39pm

jegs2 wrote:I agree with the Supreme Court. Nobody is forced to join the Boy Scouts, and no tax dollars fund it, so nobody is forced to pay for their existence either.

Actually in some cases the organizations get special priviliges from the government.

One such case was for the Sea Scouts getting special usage, mainly cheaper rental rates, of the harbor in Oakland. Should they get to discriminate?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-11-04 11:49pm

Normally, I'd say that they can discriminate against whoever they want. But the BSA are allowed to recruit in public schools. This gives the impression that the government approves of their discriminatory practices by letting them into schools. So sorry, no dice. Kick them the fuck out of public schools.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2003-11-05 12:08am

Durandal wrote:Normally, I'd say that they can discriminate against whoever they want. But the BSA are allowed to recruit in public schools.

Not to mention they often hold meetings in schools.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-05 12:13am

Durandal wrote:Normally, I'd say that they can discriminate against whoever they want. But the BSA are allowed to recruit in public schools. This gives the impression that the government approves of their discriminatory practices by letting them into schools. So sorry, no dice. Kick them the fuck out of public schools.

Depends on the individual troop's policy. The organization is hardly homogeneuos and lots of councils and troops have ignored or flat out disregarded that particular directive.

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2003-11-05 12:26am

jegs2 wrote:I agree with the Supreme Court. Nobody is forced to join the Boy Scouts, and no tax dollars fund it, so nobody is forced to pay for their existence either.

I agree with that statement.
Besides; why would anyone want to be part of the private group that is discriminating against them except to piss people off in the group?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-11-05 12:48am

If they dont want me there. They can fuck off

They are a private organization that does not provide an essential service(like employment) so, until they start getting government funds, there is nothing legally that can be done.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-11-05 01:22am

Stormbringer wrote:
Durandal wrote:Normally, I'd say that they can discriminate against whoever they want. But the BSA are allowed to recruit in public schools. This gives the impression that the government approves of their discriminatory practices by letting them into schools. So sorry, no dice. Kick them the fuck out of public schools.
Depends on the individual troop's policy. The organization is hardly homogeneuos and lots of councils and troops have ignored or flat out disregarded that particular directive.

Irrelevant. The organization as a whole embraces the policy, and it can boot out any member it wants. Witness the Eagle Scout who was stripped of his honor because he was an atheist.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-11-05 03:47am

Durandal wrote:Normally, I'd say that they can discriminate against whoever they want. But the BSA are allowed to recruit in public schools. This gives the impression that the government approves of their discriminatory practices by letting them into schools. So sorry, no dice. Kick them the fuck out of public schools.

The military also recruits at public schools and bans homosexuals from entering. They even receive public funds, come to think.

Any community event can happen at a school, as long as the school permits it. You can even have a KLAN RALLY at a highschool if you get permission.

It just wouldn't be a good idea at MY old highschool...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-05 10:05am

Durandal wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Depends on the individual troop's policy. The organization is hardly homogeneuos and lots of councils and troops have ignored or flat out disregarded that particular directive.
Irrelevant. The organization as a whole embraces the policy, and it can boot out any member it wants. Witness the Eagle Scout who was stripped of his honor because he was an atheist.

On the contrary, if a troop or council doesn't follow the national policy why should they be punished based on an policy they don't follow?

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-11-05 02:34pm

Durran Korr wrote:Private organizations SHOULDN'T discriminate either, but I don't believe they should be disallowed to do so.

But if they shouldn't discriminate, why not keep them from discriminating?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-05 02:49pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Private organizations SHOULDN'T discriminate either, but I don't believe they should be disallowed to do so.
But if they shouldn't discriminate, why not keep them from discriminating?

You shouldn't smoke cigarettes or alcohol, either. You don't outlaw something just to outlaw it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-05 02:50pm

That should be "smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol." You'd have kind of a tough time smoking alcohol.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-11-05 02:58pm

Durran Korr wrote:That should be "smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol." You'd have kind of a tough time smoking alcohol.

It burns easily enough.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-05 02:59pm

SirNitram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:That should be "smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol." You'd have kind of a tough time smoking alcohol.
It burns easily enough.

Your face, it burns, too.